1 U.S.C. § 7

Marriage

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 1 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) For the purposes of any Federal law, rule, or regulation in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual’s marriage is between 2 individuals and is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is between 2 individuals and is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State.(b) In this section, the term “State” means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United States.(c) For purposes of subsection (a), in determining whether a marriage is valid in a State or the place where entered into, if outside of any State, only the law of the jurisdiction applicable at the time the marriage was entered into may be considered.(Added Pub. L. 104–199, § 3(a), Sept. 21, 1996, 110 Stat. 2419; amended Pub. L. 117–228, § 5, Dec. 13, 2022, 136 Stat. 2306.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2022—Pub. L. 117–228 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesSeverability

Pub. L. 117–228, § 8, Dec. 13, 2022, 136 Stat. 2307, provided that: “If any provision of this Act [see Short Title of 2022 Amendment note set out under section 1 of this title], or any amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision to any person, entity, government, or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or any amendment made thereby, or the application of such provision to all other persons, entities, governments, or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.”

Findings

Pub. L. 117–228, § 2, Dec. 13, 2022, 136 Stat. 2305, provided that: “Congress finds the following:“(1) No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family.“(2) Diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises. Therefore, Congress affirms that such people and their diverse beliefs are due proper respect.“(3) Millions of people, including interracial and same-sex couples, have entered into marriages and have enjoyed the rights and privileges associated with marriage. Couples joining in marriage deserve to have the dignity, stability, and ongoing protection that marriage affords to families and children.”

No Impact on Religious Liberty and Conscience

Pub. L. 117–228, § 6, Dec. 13, 2022, 136 Stat. 2306, provided that:“(a)In General.—Nothing in this Act [see Short Title of 2022 Amendment note set out under section 1 of this title], or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection otherwise available to an individual or organization under the Constitution of the United States or Federal law.“(b)Goods or Services.—Consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution, nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based social agencies, religious educational institutions, and nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion, and any employee of such an organization, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal under this subsection to provide such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.”

Statutory Prohibition

Pub. L. 117–228, § 7, Dec. 13, 2022, 136 Stat. 2306, provided that:“(a)No Impact on Status and Benefits Not Arising From a Marriage.—Nothing in this Act [see Short Title of 2022 Amendment note set out under section 1 of this title], or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to deny or alter any benefit, status, or right of an otherwise eligible entity or person which does not arise from a marriage, including tax-exempt status, tax treatment, educational funding, or a grant, contract, agreement, guarantee, loan, scholarship, license, certification, accreditation, claim, or defense.“(b)No Federal Recognition of Polygamous Marriages.—Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to require or authorize Federal recognition of marriages between more than 2 individuals.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 139 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case: Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2012). · cites it 8× “§ 2056 (A) 7 solely because Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act 8 (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. § 7 , defines the words “marriage” and 9 “spouse” in federal law in a way that bars the Internal 10 Revenue Service from recognizing Windsor as a spouse or the 11 couple as married.”

In Re Kandu, 315 B.R. 123 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2004). · cites it 6× “1 The Debtor filed a Memorandum in Support of Debtors’ Joint Filing on April 20, 2004, challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 1 U.S.C. § 7 . On April 30, 2004, the United States Trustee (UST) filed a motion for order shortening time and a Motion…”

Conaway v. Deane, 932 A.2d 571 (Md. 2007). · cites it 4× “§ 7 (2006); (2) ensuring that dramatic cultural changes be adopted through vigorous public debate culminating in legislative decisions; and (3) maintaining the traditional institution of marriage because it is so deeply ingrained in our history and traditions.”

United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013). · cites it 2× “” 1 U. S. C. §7 . The definitional provision does not by its terms forbid States from enacting laws permitting same-sex marriages or civil unions or providing state benefits to residents in that status.”

United States v. Dedman, 527 F.3d 577 (6th Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “See 1 U.S.C. § 7 (defining marriage as "only a legal union" (emphasis added)); Bishop v.”

In re Marriage of LaFleur & Pyfer, 2021 CO 3 (Colo. 2021). “DOMA defined marriage as “a legal union between one man and one woman” for all federal purposes, 1 U.S.C. § 7 , invalidated by United States v.”

Andersen v. King Cnty., 138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 4× “1. DOMA amended RCW 26.04.010 to describe marriage as a civil contract that is valid only if "between a male and a female" and to provide in RCW 26.”

Smelt v. Cnty. of Orange, 447 F.3d 673 (9th Cir. 2006). · cites it 12× “§ 1738C, 1 U.S.C. § 7 ). SMELT v. COUNTY OF ORANGE 5049 cause [they] are of the same gender.”

Andersen v. King Cnty., 158 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 4× “DOMA amended RCW 26.04.010 to describe marriage as a civil contract that is valid only if “between a male and a female” and to provide in RCW 26.”

In re the Marriage of Dean LAFLEUR v. Timothy PYFER, 479 P.3d 869 (Colo. 2021). “DOMA defined marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman" for all federal purposes, 1 U.S.C. § 7 , invalidated by United States v.”

Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “(quoting 1 U.S.C. § 7 ). Appellants repeatedly assert that Amendment 3 simply defines marriage, at one point contrasting “the traditional definition of marriage” with “the anti-miscegenation laws invalidated in Loving.”

Knight v. Superior Court, 2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2894 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “( 1 U.S.C. § 7 .) 1 The second provides that a state shall not be required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.”

Show all 139 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.